Planning Board Workshop on the Technical Manual, 9/13 at 4:30 pm

[Winston Lumpkins]

On Tuesday, September 13th the Planing Board will hold its second workshop this year on the Technical Manual.  

I have learned of this through a series of emails with members of the Planning Board & the Planning Department.  It hasn't appeared in the Agenda center yet, but I'm told it will.

There will be proposed amendments to Sections 1, 2, 4 and 10 of the Technical Manual.  These will focus on standards related to transportation systems and street design, sewer and storm drain design, site landscaping and street lighting.  I don't believe the Planning board plans on voting on the 13th, though, it would be a good time to suggest further amendments, as such things could be incorporated for whenever they do vote in amendments to the Technical Manual. 

I'm told that there will be updated guidance for bike lanes included, at the request of the Chair, Maggie Stanley.  The report won't be posted until the end of the day, Friday, 9-09-22.  Apparently that's normal for a Tuesday planning board workshop. 

The Technical manual covers most aspects of Portland's Street design, including sidewalks.  It's (so I've been told by Helen Donaldson, and also saw mentioned by David Silk in the earlier workshop) entirely the planning board's purview.  Once they adopt amendments to the Technical Manual, it goes into effect, and does not require a vote by the councilors, just the planning board. 

I think the technical manual is as important as the Land Use code, in terms of enjoyment of life for Portlanders. 

Perhaps at this Month's meeting, which will be held the day before, we could vote on a short note to the planning board.  I don't think it would make it into the official packet as those are usually cutoff at noon the day before, but, I can make sure they see it, or even read it out loud as my public comment if there's any doubt. 

For the most part however, I urge you, dear listserv members, all 150 of you, to consider writing emails (planni...@portlandmaine.gov) & showing up on zoom on Tuesday the 13th at 4:30 pm in support of bike lane requirements, sensible contiguous (raised speed table style) sidewalk & multi use trail requirements  & whatever your nerdy hearts desire. 

I think they can more or less amend the Technical manual whenever they want, but, since they're already looking into bike lane standards, this might be a really relevant time to bring it up. 

Yours,

~Winston

Winston Lumpkins IV (he/him/his)

Vice Chair, Portland Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
https://www.portlandbikeped.org/

winston....@gmail.com
207-408-1508

[Scsmedia]

I tried to send this with the docs attached, but they were to large for Google Groups.

So here is the link to the May 10, 2022 meeting

https://portlandme.civicclerk.com/Web/Player.aspx?id=2754&key=-1&mod=-1&mk=-1&nov=0

Steven Scharf

-----Original Message-----
From: Scsmedia <scsm...@aol.com>
To: PB...@googlegroups.com <PB...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Sep 4, 2022 5:19 pm
Subject: Re: [PBPAC] Planning Board Workshop on the Technical Manual, 9/13 at 4:30 pm

The first Planning Board

 Workshop on the revisions to the Technical Manual was held on May 10, 2022.  Attached are the back up materials.

Technical Manual Amendment Updates (Staff Report) Technical Manual Amend. (Staff Attachments) PC1 - Sarah Cushman 5-9-2022

There were some bike section revisions in this draft.  See pages PDF 24 to 28 of the Technical Manual Amendments doc.  There is additional info further into the document.

It would be nice to have more than the weekend to review and digest changes.

We should draft a note in advance to review at the meeting.

Steven Scharf

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Portland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to PBPAC+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CABaJc7xF-UaeWUBOF%3DpCqpmFV_m_zte3Q%2BL3mgmfxkNRasW41g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Winston Lumpkins]

Thanks Steven,

It'll be really interesting to see how that section has changed since May.  Certainly, it's an improvement over the previous, truly anemic section.

Perhaps requiring a door zone buffer vs. suggesting that one may be used would be a good idea. 

Even an experienced rider might benefit from a visual reminder of just how big the danger zone is, and they might help drivers understand why cyclists aren't ridding that far to the right. 

I wonder if the presence of one might even lead to more caution exercised by motorists exiting their vehicles?   That's probably too much to hope for!

A question I have for the group at large is, does anyone know of any requirements for contiguous, speed table style sidewalks crossings in other cities?  It occurs to me to suggest that they look into requiring them in some instances & defining their dimensions, as we have used them in places such as the Brighton/Deering roundabout & on Capisic Street already...   Perhaps someone knows off the top of their head somewhere that requires them. 

~Winston

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/10356653.4212981.1662332161020%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Scsmedia]

does anyone know of any requirements for contiguous, speed table style sidewalks crossings in other cities?

I am confused by your question. Contigous implies running along the sidewalks, crossing I plies going across the road which are two different things. 

Steven

Sent from the all new AOL app for Android

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CABaJc7wycpESBG9pjJZNrocrZ9j-h4oV6tQ31zLjFUFfCRskvA%40mail.gmail.com.

[winston.lumpkins]

The Agenda is Upon us! 

https://portlandme.civicclerk.com/Web/Player.aspx?id=2770&key=-1&mod=-1&mk=-1&nov=0

Att. 6 - 2nd Draft Section 1_Transportation speaks to bike lanes, street design & sidewalks.

I'm only just now looking at it, but, wanted to ping those who might be following this closely so you could all get the jump on preparing comment.  We may submit a short official PBPAC letter, but I encourage anyone here to submit there own as well.   Even if it's just a short one, knowing that there are eyes on this and people care is key.  You may have specific priorities & perspective which we won't be able to address in our letter as well. 

Here's a google Docs file to dump thoughts into, which may be incorporated into said letter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zePLM8O_SVeIEBHWwF_4TYySr7PO8imzE85iJJ7f7lY/edit?usp=sharing

Steven:
In finding a suitable description of contiguous sidewalks, also known as raised cross walks, to answer your question, I've also answered my own.  Here's a pretty good guide to the uses & challenges of various types of raised crosswalks in the USA, beginning on section 3.14: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ePrimer_modules/module3pt2.cfm

I think they might be useful in more applications than they are currently applied & they obstruct bike lanes a lot less than a "bulb out" does.  I'm going to run into a bulb out eventually & bust my ass, but a raised cross walk isn't dangerous, even to mindless fools :). 

[thomas nosal]

Tacking on to the discussion regarding contiguous sidewalks... I am very happy to see the updates to I-9A and I-9B. It's a somewhat subtle change but I think it has a big impact on the look and feel of a streetscape. Rather than tipping the sidewalk down to street level at every driveway crossing (standard practice for the past few decades), the sidewalk elevation will be maintained across the driveway with a short transition perpendicular to the sidewalk. It sorta turns every driveway into a little speed hump and is more likely to result in an ADA-compliant cross slope. 

Here's a screenshot from Google showing something similar to the new standard on the left and the old standard on the right. The left prioritizes people walking, the left prioritizes cars. 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/d8e87e08-335d-447c-8edb-05e59f05db53n%40googlegroups.com.

[winston.lumpkins]

Hmm- is that in section 1.7 of this document?  I think that's what it's saying? 
Not sure what you mean by I-9A... 

I've noticed some new construction is building it's driveway aprons like that, and I like it very, very much, for the reasons Thomas lays out! 

[winston.lumpkins]

Ah, I see that that I-9A & I-9B refers to the Image number. 

The images are at the bottom of the document I've linked to in this thread.
Driveway aprons are described on page 14 of that PDF, in section 1.7
Which, weirdly, is before section 1.10...  Which is I guess said "One point seven & one point TEN."  Ok.  If you say so. 

When you download the documents, the names are awful gobbdy gok, which makes it very hard to keep track of when looking at a few of them in different tabs in a PDF reader & means when I want to look at one again I have to just re-download it because I can't find it in my downloads folder.  I could carefully re-name each one as I downloaded it, which is presumably what everyone else does, but I find this super duper frustrating. 

[winston.lumpkins]

We determined that the time given doesn't quite allow an official letter, since it would have had to be submitted today prior to Noon to make their packet.  

I will be able to testify tomorrow afternoon, and though I will make clear I don't speak officially for PBPAC, will mention our interest in the Technical Manual in my remarks. 

I would certainly encourage anyone else to attend as well & email the planning board about your priorities for the technical manual should you have any.  
Even if they don't see emails prior to the workshop tomorrow, this process will continue, so it would be good for them to receive those emails! 

~Winston

[Scsmedia]

Introduce your self as chair and note that although we have discussed the document we have not built a consensus on changes. But here are my thoughts. 

Sorry to miss the meeting tonight, something unexpected came up and then I went to dinner.

Steven Scharf

207-415-4662

SCSM...@AOL.COM 

Sent from the all new AOL app for Android

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/cb640052-a78f-475c-bb29-e4b046d3c936n%40googlegroups.com

.

[winston.lumpkins]

I plan to attend the planning board meeting tonight & give testimony, but also sent this email. 
It won't make their packet, but, will be in the public record of the meeting for future reference. 

-------

Dear Chair Stanley & Members of the Portland Maine Planning Board,

I’m Winston Lumpkins, Chair of the Portland Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

The committee has discussed the Draft of the Technical Manual at length, but we have not yet adopted a consensus on changes.  What follows are my own opinions. 

Thank you to those who’ve been putting the work into this document.  It’s really very good.  These comments are not exhaustive, given the short period of time available for public review.  Given the opportunity PBPAC would be happy to go over the proposed revisions in their entirety. 

I want to encourage the planning board to adopt some of the changes in particular:  The updated driveway apron requirements, the updated Bicycle parking specifics, doorzone warning buffers between bike lanes and parked cars and, of course, the strongly worded suggestion to look at travel lane width & configuration if necessary to provide bicycle lanes of minimum width.   

There is much more that I like in the draft, however, I will address a few ways in which it could be improved:

I think in addition to Neck Downs, AKA bulb outs, we should be using raised sidewalk crossings when vehicle speed needs to be reduced.  This Guide covers their application & even addresses stormwater concerns, beginning in section 3.14. 

A raised sidewalk crossing on a street with a bike lane allows the cyclist to continue without having to merge with traffic & allows the bike lane to be continuous.  They also do away with sidewalk grade changes, which can be difficult for those with mobility difficulties to traverse. I think they should be used at many intersections between Major streets & neighborhood streets in addition to problematic crossings of Major streets.

Raised Sidewalk Crossings should be used when a multi-use trail crosses a street it’s grade separated from, and that use case should be mandatory.  Ideally, that would have been in place when the Bayside Trail was extended from Elm to Brattle Street.  It should be in place for all future intersections of multi-use trails & travel lanes, especially in cases where the trail might have higher traffic volume than the street.  

I strongly advise the Planning board to direct the DPW & the Planning department to reference the Massachusetts DOT’s separated bike lane guide instead of the FHWA guide. 

It’s a more exhaustive, clearer, more current document.  I am a year round commuting cyclist & I would be far more comfortable with separated bike lanes if the Mass DOT’s standards were used.  

I would like to see requirements that new street lights have the ability to sense bicycles- I know that some new ones can do this, but it should, eventually, be universal.  I would like to see us start using separate bicycle signals.  If we’re serious about separated bike lanes we need to get serious about Portland's ridiculously dangerous intersections.  At the very least, we should consider, in some cases, allowing bicycles to proceed at the same time as pedestrians. 

Thanks for reading these comments & for all the work put into improving the Technical Manual. 

Sincerely yours,

~Winston Lumpkins